Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Challenges to Corporate Culture Presented By Anonymous Whistleblowing
Whether the ends justify the means is a question that arises in many areas of the law. For example, the national debate on the use of extreme methods to interrogate suspected terrorists turns on this question. Proponents of extreme methods argue that the prevention of terror attacks in the U.S. is such an important goal that conventional methods of interrogation are insufficient. Opponents of extreme methods argue that everyone is entitled to minimal human rights, whether or not suspected of being a terrorist, and that failure to provide minimal human rights sacrifices our most cherished values.
A similar debate about ends and means is brewing with respect to legal protections for anonymous whistleblowers. Prior to enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ('SOX'), legal protections for anonymous whistleblowers were almost unknown. Nevertheless, following the corporate implosions of Enron, WorldCom and others, and the resulting downturn in the stock markets, Congress determined that prevention of future stock market collapses was a sufficiently important goal to justify creating legal protections for anonymous whistleblowers.
In a little-noticed development this summer, Congress enacted new protections for anonymous whistleblowers employed in the public transportation industry as part of The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 ('the 9/11 Act'), Publ. Law No. 110-053 (2007). Those protections include requirements that the identities of whistleblowers be kept strictly confidential, with limited exceptions. Again, Congress concluded that an important goal ' the prevention of terror attacks in the public transportation industry ' justifies measures to protect the identities of whistleblowers.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?